The present invention relates to identifying markings for the purpose of forensic identification. The identification subject is a human being, the identification carrier a tooth of the human being, and the identification mark an information carrier of metal, organic or inorganic polymers, glass, porcelain or similar durable materials.
Every year more than 1,000 people are killed in aircraft crashes alone (SAMIS, P. L.--Systems of Dental Identification; Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 8:77-86, 1975). In Switzerland alone 3,500 people died in all types of accidents in 1976 (Swiss Statistical Yearbook 1976). The same number of persons are determined to be missing in a single year in the Glasgow area (BUTLER, O. H.--Unidentified Bodies and Missing Persons Circulation of Dental Data for Identification; J. Forensic Soc. 14:223-224, 1974). In single earthquakes thousands of people can be killed and, large numbers of victims must also be expected in train crashes, floods, etc. The accurate identification of the victims is necessary for a number of reasons, including considerations relating to insurance, inheritance, and religion.
Over the past few decades, the development of identification methods has been largely limited to establishing methods for identifying living persons. For example, various anatomical marks on living humans and their changes on the corpse have been described, together with their postmortem applicability by comparison with the in vivo findings. Virtually no practically relevant advances have been made with comparative methods other than finger printing.
There are at least seven different methods for the identification of a corpse (GUSTAFSON, G.--Forensic Odontology; Staples Press, London, G.B. 1966, LUNTZ, L. L. & LUNTZ, P.--Handbook for Dental Identification, Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, U.S.A., 1973; MIDDA, M.--The Role of Dental Identification in Mass Disasters, J. Irish Dent. Ass. 20:67-69, 1974). These are:
1. Visual Identification
Identification of the corpse by relative or acquaintances using photographs of either the facial or other physical features. The prerequisite for this is that the body features such as shape, colour, etc. still exist on the corpse.
2. Identification by items of clothing
Analysis of the chemical compositon of clothing textiles, identifying labels, etc. The prerequisite for this is the existance of clothing and possibly proof to the effect that they belong to the corpse. p 3. Identification by Passport
Comparison of the passport and other documents on the corpse and other documents with photographs which are normally kept in files.
4. Identification by jewelry
Identification by relatives or acquaintances, possibly with the aid of photographs or documents relative to jewelry. The prerequisite for this is that the jewels used for identification purposes actually belonged to the corpse.
5. Identification by finger prints
Comparison of the finger-prints before and after death. The prerequisite is the existance of antemortem finger-prints.
6. Identification by Medical and Dental investigations
Comparison of medical and dental documents which existed prior to death with specific postmortem features. Here again the prerequisite is the existence of relatively stable antemortem documents.
7. Identification by exclusion
Forensic science has always attached great importance to teeth as an identification object because they fulfil the following requirements;
(a) Durability: Paleontological investigations have shown that after death the teeth are the best preserved parts of the entire skeleton (TELLIER, L., DANHIEZ, P. SALAUM, M.--Identification des Cadavres a Partir des Fichiers Dentaires; Rev. Stomatoodontol. Nord. Fr. 28:268-276, 1973). PA0 (b) Heat Resistance: Statistics reveal that even in severly mutilating fires, teeth suffer relatively little damage. PA0 (c) Versatility: the 32 teeth have complex anatomical features making it possible to easily differenciate them or compare them.
The use of only one of the above methods is seldom sufficient for a completely satisfactory identification of a corpse. Often additional clarifications are required to obtain comparative data.
In addition, much is left to be desired with respect to the reliability of these methods, particularly in cases where there are insufficient points of agreement. In addition, it is generally necessary to have a large team of specialists for an often difficult and complicated identification. Frequently no such experts are available, so that further difficulties can result due to irreversible errors during the identification procedure.
Of the 605 victims of various aircraft crashes the above methods were able to identify 577 corpses, and of these almost half, i.e. 260 only by dental experts (MIDDA, 1974).
Using the conventional comparative identification procedure, an average five hours per corpse were necessary (SAMIS, 1975), provided that antemortem X-ray photographs or dental charts existed and could be discovered. However, even with this very time-consuming comparative procedure, reliable identification was frequently not possible.
Up to now the forensic dentist has exclusively used the four-stage system of LUNTZ & LUNTZ, 1973 for the identification of bodies.
(a) Examination of the oral cavity of the corpse.
(b) Documentation of specific features on the corpse.
(c) Obtaining antemortem comparative documentation.
(d) Comparison of the antemortem and postmortem findings.
In 1975 SAMIS proposed for the first time a method whereby antemortem an information carrier would be incorporated in the crown of the tooth for postmortem identification. However, the method is complicated, time-consuming, and requires inter alia a diagnostic X-ray apparatus at the point of the accident to discover the SAMIS identification mark on the corpse.